it's absolutely relevant to the building of this roster at present and future to discuss whether this team can or can not properly develop and successfully deploy impact forwards, and why or why not.
i'm sorry, but references to kakko are a germane facet of that discussion. not "boo hoo we traded my favorite funny boi" or "lmao drury sux kakko ppg suck it," but actual observation. is anyone watching the kraken? or just reading box scores?
in fact, it's specifically an extremely useful case study for this generally accepted issue with the Rangers..
for example, to
@SnowblindNYR point, did Seattle "develop him in 14 games?" Or did they take a player and deploy him properly, infuse him with confidence, and line him up with the right teammates? aka put him in a position to succeed?
Or is this a streak, borne perhaps of greater effort resulting from the trade? Or just mere shooting PDO luck - a complete nothingburger?
Again, really important things to talk about. We are looking at Lafreniere, a player who - like kakko - was universally regarded as having superstar potential. don't want to litigate the semantics of superstar, star, generational, elite. The point is: they were supposed to be GOOD.
I keep thinking about what
@Machinehead would always condemn Kakko for - and now does the same for Laf: "he's the same bum he was when he came into the league."
I think about how we see other players on other teams take steps and leaps to grow in their efficacy and utility. They begin to do more things well. Lundell. Jarvis. Harley.
I think about how, yes, these are professional athletes, but that maybe Kakko previously and Laf now looking like the same players they've always been is the whole point. That's the disconnect. Players don't come into the league fully formed, as skilled as they may be. Talent, the kind that goes 1 or 2 overall, isn't just what they showed in juniors: it's an ability to grow and get better *better than peers.*
Our guys largely haven't been getting better *better than others.* In fact, they haven't really been getting better *at all.*
I believe the organization is to blame. I don't have a solution, because i don't know where the responsibility lies. But we need to be better at facilitating our young players to get better. They're just pretty much staying the same.
Take Cuylle - an example of relatively successful development.
He's PKing this year and flourishing in that role. Has he gotten better, though? Is he doing things he wasn't doing last year - structurally, defensively, individually, statistically?
I'm not well versed enough in either hockey game within the game (
@LokiDog, your thoughts) or advanced metrics (
@Machinehead) to be able to truly evaluate his individual play - let alone within the different line contexts, and context of the teams up and downs.
But to me, it feels like he's the same player being given a slightly longer leash. It looks like the team said "hey he can skate okay, he plays good physical D, he can give up the body... Will, you PK now."
does anyone see evidence of his growth as a player?
